DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed by Applicant on 05/27/2026.
Applicant amends claims 1, 5, and 13, and introduces new claims 18 and 19.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant presents amendments to claims 1, 5, and 13. All amendments have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the previous claim objection. The objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 13 are sufficient to distinguish the present claims from the conflicting parent US 12,141,307 B2 (issued from Application No. 17/737,363), overcoming the previous double patenting rejection. The double patenting rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 13 are sufficient to overcome the previously cited reference supporting the anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and the combination of references serving as the basis for the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, a new search was conducted to identify prior art that the current subject matter of the claims might read on. New art was identified and new rejections are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 13. All arguments have been fully considered.
The Examiner agrees that the previously cited reference serving as the basis for the anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 does not teach the clarified limitations articulated in the amended claim language. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn. As mentioned above, a new search was conducted and a secondary reference was identified, which is combined with the primary reference to serve as the basis for the new obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–3, 8–11, 13–16, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman (US 2012/0036452 A1, published Feb. 9, 2012) in view of Anand (US 2020/0226953 A1, published Jul. 16, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Coleman discloses: a method of enabling sensitive information to be masked while screensharing HTML elements (dynamically determining components of a displayed webpage to be masked during a screensharing session. Coleman ¶ 33.), comprising the steps of: loading masking script to a browser (the source code can be included in one or more tags that are inserted within the web page, where the one or more tags can automatically load the source code. Once loaded, the source code can dynamically identify components and dynamically modify the web page. Coleman ¶ 35.), the browser having a DOM containing a set of HTML elements, a display of the browser forming a portion of visual content of an application display (the source code can analyze a document object model ("DOM") of the web page and determine whether each component of the web page is an element that should be displayed during a screen sharing session, or whether the component is an element that should be masked during the screen sharing session. Coleman ¶ 33.); loading a list of CSS selectors identifying a subset of the HTML elements to be masked (determine whether each component of the web page is an element that should be displayed during a screen sharing session or should be masked. Coleman ¶ 33.).
Coleman does not disclose: determining, by the masking script, a list of locations and sizes of the subset of the HTML elements identified by the list of CSS selectors within the display of the browser, the list of the locations and sizes of the subset of HTML elements specifying locations and sizes of regions of the browser to be masked; communicating the list of the locations and sizes of the regions of the browser to be masked by the masking script to a screenshare client via a screenshare client interface; receiving the list of the locations and sizes of the regions of the browser to be masked by the screenshare client via the screenshare client interface; and redacting corresponding regions of the application display by the screenshare client, prior to transmitting screensharing data by the screenshare client on a screensharing session.
However, Anand does disclose: determining, by the masking script, a list of locations and sizes of the subset of the HTML elements identified by the list of CSS selectors within the display of the browser, the list of the locations and sizes of the subset of HTML elements specifying locations and sizes of regions of the browser to be masked (the masking application get the location/size of the masked areas. Anand ¶ 53.); communicating the list of the locations and sizes of the regions of the browser to be masked by the masking script to a screenshare client via a screenshare client interface (the masking application masks the object in the transmitted media stream via the graphical interface. Anand ¶¶ 55–59.); receiving the list of the locations and sizes of the regions of the browser to be masked by the screenshare client via the screenshare client interface (an image is rendered based on the masked code of the controlling user’s browser and then rendered image based on the masked code is then transmitted to the other communication devices. Anand ¶¶ 60–61.); and redacting corresponding regions of the application display by the screenshare client, prior to transmitting screensharing data by the screenshare client on a screensharing session (the user can mask out specific objects or portions of objects before sharing the window to other users in the communication session. Anand ¶ 44.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the masking of components of displayed information in a browser during a screen sharing session of Coleman with generating a list of size and location of the masked elements and transmitting the list to the application display via a screenshare client interface based upon the teachings of Anand. The motivation being to mask the object prior to sending the protected data. Anand ¶ 61.
Regarding claim 2, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the locations and sizes of the HTML elements are each specified using two respective (x,y) coordinate values identifying opposite corners of a rectangular area encompassing the respective HTML element within coordinate space of the display of the browser (masking indications, which are a corner location and determination of a border (horizontal and vertical distances for the color change) for the region to be masked. Coleman ¶¶ 67, 70 and 73. Locating the visible corners. Coleman ¶ 63.).
Regarding claim 3, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 2, wherein the coordinate values are implemented as (x,y) offset values specifying locations relative to edge of the display of the browser (the screen capture module searches and locates the visible corner of masking border 625, traces masking border 625 in horizontal and vertical directions extending from the visible corner, inserts the missing corners, and inserts the missing masking border extending from the inserted corners to complete masking border 625, where the inserted corners and inserted masking border are indicated by the dashed lines of masking border 625 in FIG. 6. Coleman ¶ 61.).
Regarding claim 8, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 1, further comprising: capturing, by the screensharing client on the screensharing session, screenshare data describing visible content displayed on the application display, at least a portion of the visible content being generated by the browser (the screen capture module uses source code in a scripting language for dynamic identification of components of the application and determines components to be displayed during the screen sharing session. Coleman ¶¶ 32–33.); receiving, by the screensharing client, the list of locations and sizes of redacted regions within the browser to be masked on the screensharing session; correlating the list of locations and sizes within the browser to redacted regions of the application display (dynamic identification of components of the application and determines components to be displayed or masked during the screen sharing session. Coleman ¶ 33. Masking indications are determined, which are a corner location and determination of a border (horizontal and vertical distances for the color change) for the region to be masked. Coleman ¶¶ 67, 70 and 73.); omitting content of the redacted regions, by the screensharing client from the screenshare data, to create redacted screenshare data, the redacted screenshare data describing visible content displayed on the application display outside of the redacted regions of the application display and not describing visible content displayed on the application display inside the redacted regions; and transmitting the redacted screenshare data on the screensharing session (the masking is performed at the computer operatively coupled to the first screen, and the masking is performed before the capturing and the transmitting are performed. Coleman ¶ 73.).
Regarding claim 9, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 8, wherein correlating the list of locations and sizes to regions of the application display comprises determining a location of the browser within the application display (the screen capture module searches and locates the visible corner of masking border 625, traces masking border 625 in horizontal and vertical directions extending from the visible corner, inserts the missing corners, and inserts the missing masking border extending from the inserted corners to complete masking border 625, where the inserted corners and inserted masking border are indicated by the dashed lines of masking border 625 in FIG. 6. Coleman ¶ 61.).
Regarding claim 10, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 8, wherein omitting content of the redacted regions comprises capturing screenshare data describing the visible content of the application display, and removing content of the redacted regions from the captured screenshare data (dynamic identification of components of the application and determines components to be displayed or masked during the screen sharing session. Coleman ¶ 33.).
Regarding claim 11, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 8, wherein omitting content of the redacted regions comprises determining the locations of the redacted regions, and capturing screenshare data describing the visible content of the application display outside of the redacted regions while not capturing screenshare data describing the visible content of the application display inside the redacted regions (the screen capture module searches and locates the visible corner of masking border 625, traces masking border 625 in horizontal and vertical directions extending from the visible corner, inserts the missing corners, and inserts the missing masking border extending from the inserted corners to complete masking border 625, where the inserted corners and inserted masking border are indicated by the dashed lines of masking border 625 in FIG. 6. Coleman ¶ 61.).
Regarding claim 13, Coleman discloses: a method of enabling sensitive information to be masked while screensharing HTML elements (dynamically determining components of a displayed webpage to be masked during a screensharing session. Coleman ¶ 33.) comprising the steps of: capturing, by a screensharing client on a screensharing session, screenshare data describing visible content displayed on an application display, at least a portion of the visible content being generated by an browser (the screen capture module uses source code in a scripting language for dynamic identification of components of the application and determines components to be displayed during the screen sharing session. Coleman ¶¶ 32–33.); omitting content of the redacted regions by the screensharing client from the screenshare data to create redacted screenshare data, the redacted screenshare data describing visible content displayed on the application display with the exception of the redacted regions of the application display; and transmitting the redacted screenshare data on the screensharing session (the masking is performed at the computer operatively coupled to the first screen, and the masking is performed before the capturing and the transmitting are performed. Coleman ¶ 73.).
Colemans does not disclose: receiving, by a screensharing client via a screenshare client interface, a list of regions within the browser to be masked by the screensharing client on the screensharing session, the list of redacted regions identifying locations and sizes of regions of the browser to be masked within the browser using a coordinate system associated with the browser; correlating the list of locations and sizes of the regions of the browser to be masked to redacted regions of the application display.
However, Anand does disclose: receiving, by a screensharing client via a screenshare client interface, a list of regions within the browser to be masked by the screensharing client on the screensharing session, the list of redacted regions identifying locations and sizes of regions of the browser to be masked within the browser using a coordinate system associated with the browser (the masking application get the location/size of the masked areas. Anand ¶ 53. the masking application masks the object in the transmitted media stream via the graphical interface. Anand ¶¶ 55–59.); correlating the list of locations and sizes of the regions of the browser to be masked to redacted regions of the application display (the user can mask out specific objects or portions of objects before sharing the window to other users in the communication session. Anand ¶ 44.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the masking of components of displayed information in a browser during a screen sharing session of Coleman with generating a list of size and location of the masked elements and transmitting the list to the application display via a screenshare client interface based upon the teachings of Anand. The motivation being to mask the object prior to sending the protected data. Anand ¶ 61.
Regarding claim 14, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 13, wherein correlating the list of locations and sizes to regions of the application display comprises determining a location of the browser within the application display, and combining the location of the browser within the application display with the locations of the redacted regions within the browser (the screen capture module searches and locates the visible corner of masking border 625, traces masking border 625 in horizontal and vertical directions extending from the visible corner, inserts the missing corners, and inserts the missing masking border extending from the inserted corners to complete masking border 625, where the inserted corners and inserted masking border are indicated by the dashed lines of masking border 625 in FIG. 6. Coleman ¶ 61.).
Regarding claim 15, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 13, wherein omitting content of the redacted regions comprises capturing screenshare data describing the visible content of the application display, and removing content of the redacted regions from the captured screenshare data (dynamic identification of components of the application and determines components to be displayed or masked during the screen sharing session. Coleman ¶ 33.).
Regarding claim 16, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 13, wherein omitting content of the redacted regions comprises determining the locations of the redacted regions, and capturing screenshare data describing the visible content of the application display outside of the redacted regions while not capturing screenshare data describing the visible content of the application display inside the redacted regions (the screen capture module searches and locates the visible corner of masking border 625, traces masking border 625 in horizontal and vertical directions extending from the visible corner, inserts the missing corners, and inserts the missing masking border extending from the inserted corners to complete masking border 625, where the inserted corners and inserted masking border are indicated by the dashed lines of masking border 625 in FIG. 6. Coleman ¶ 61.).
Regarding claim 18, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 13, wherein the application display has an application display coordinate system that is used to display the content of the application display, the application display coordinate scale having a first coordinate scale; wherein the coordinate system associated with the browser has a second coordinate scale; and wherein the first coordinate scale is the same as the second coordinate scale (Anand ¶ 53.).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Anand in view of Powell (US 2012/0173966 A1, published Jul. 5, 2012).
Regarding claim 4, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 1. Coleman in view of Anand does not disclose: adding a mutation observer to the DOM to detect changes to the DOM.
However, Powell does disclose: adding a mutation observer to the DOM to detect changes to the DOM (the capture agent detects a DOM change within a webpage, including replacement of a DOM item. Powell ¶ 48.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the masking of components of displayed information in a browser during a screen sharing session of Coleman with the detection of changes to the DOM based upon the teachings of Powell. The motivation being detect user interaction with the website for example when a user selects an item displayed on the page for purposes of purchasing that item. Powell ¶ 46.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Anand in view of Zhang (US 10,289,296 B1, issued May 14, 2019).
Regarding claim 6, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 1. Coleman in view of Anand does not disclose: adding a scroll event handler to the DOM to detect scroll operations in the browser.
However, Zhang does disclose: adding a scroll event handler to the DOM to detect scroll operations in the browser (identifying items appended to the DOM including detecting a scroll action. Zhang 14:45–15:8.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the masking of components of displayed information in a browser during a screen sharing session of Coleman with detecting scroll operations by the user in the browser based upon the teachings of Zhang. The motivation being to automatically append content to a user browser display as the existing content is scrolled. Zhang ¶ 1:27–48.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Anand in view of Swingler (US 2009/0309808 A1, published Dec. 17, 2009).
Regarding claim 19, Coleman in view of Anand discloses the limitations of claim 13. Coleman in view of Anand does not disclose: wherein the application display has an application display coordinate system that is used to display the content of the application display, the application display coordinate scale having a first coordinate scale; wherein the coordinate system associated with the browser has a second coordinate scale; and wherein the first coordinate scale is not the same as the second coordinate scale; and wherein correlating the list of the locations and sizes of the regions of the browser to be masked to redacted regions of the application display comprises applying a scaling factor to the locations and sizes of the regions of the browser to be masked to determine the locations of the redacted regions of the application display by the screenshare client.
However, Swingler does disclose: wherein the application display has an application display coordinate system that is used to display the content of the application display, the application display coordinate scale having a first coordinate scale; wherein the coordinate system associated with the browser has a second coordinate scale; and wherein the first coordinate scale is not the same as the second coordinate scale; and wherein correlating the list of the locations and sizes of the regions of the browser to be masked to redacted regions of the application display comprises applying a scaling factor to the locations and sizes of the regions of the browser to be masked to determine the locations of the redacted regions of the application display by the screenshare client (using a scaling factor in a screensharing environment so that the pixels may be scaled based on a dynamic scaling factor determined for every scaling operation. Swingler ¶¶ 39 and 61.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the masking of components of displayed information in a browser during a screen sharing session of Coleman with corresponding displayed objects from one size screen to another size screen using a scaling factor based upon the teachings of Swingler. The motivation being to maintain the positional relationships, sizes and other characteristics between two shared displays. Swingler ¶ 60.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 12, 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE LITTLE whose telephone number is (571)270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights